135jc wrote:You can hope but around here you get voted in by promising the most free stuff.

Everybody is for free stuff, until they have to pay for it. Even some of my more liberal friends in NYC are starting to grumble about all the proposed new taxes and revenue options being put forward by DiBlasio.

As Margaret Thatcher once said "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".

Yvonne wrote:The city's budget has been introduced but not adopted. It normally awaits the payment of federal funds in the budget. If the city lose $9 million that is close to a $2.00 tax increase to replace those funds for being a sancutary city.

I hope we lose the $9 million, and everyone who voted for us to be a lawless sanctuary city gets voted out of office.

The city's budget has been introduced but not adopted. It normally awaits the payment of federal funds in the budget. If the city lose $9 million that is close to a $2.00 tax increase to replace those funds for being a sancutary city.

The battle begins New Jersey City ‘Immigrant Commission’ to respond to federal order to cooperate with ICE

by Al Sullivan - Reporter staff writer -Jun 11, 2017

The newly-formed Jersey City Immigration Commission will prepare a response to a memo from U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions that ordered the city to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement or lose federal dollars.

At their second meeting since being established, the JCIC discussed how to respond to the federal demand that could result in the loss of more than $9 million in federal aid.

Sessions released a memo on June 4 defining “sanctuary jurisdictions,” a term for local governments that refuse to fully comply with federal immigration laws.

Sessions said that those cities that meet his definition will be ineligible to receive grants from the Departments of Justice or Homeland Security.

$15 seems a little steep... isn't there another ordinance saying that $15 is the minimum wage?

Sounds like the City is exploiting these people? Can't wait for the first civil case to be filed against JC demanding these cards be free?

I hope they attach an amendment making it illegal to reproduce these valuable cards. Seems to me that I could do the same thing with a little help from Staples and sell them for $4 card including photo.

And on Saturdays I would give family discounts, $1 per card plus a bag of popcorn.

Monroe wrote:Is anyone shocked that the activist CA judge was a campaign funding bundler for Obama who delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations?

(The same judge also ruled against the group that released the Planned Parenthood baby parts selling video-while the judge's wife is a well known pro-abortion activist!).

$200,000 collected plus $30,000 of his own money in 2008. No one ever heard of his wife but wacko Neo-Con websites looked up every snippet of info on her including what videos she "liked" on Youtube. Stop being a hysterical Grandma.

The "judge" is a biased political hack who has no business being on the bench.

Like Monroe said, let's see what happens when these activist decisions get reviewed by a real court.

You two know nothing.

When a real court reviews and overturns this political activist's decision, I expect to hear an apology from you.

Monroe wrote:Is anyone shocked that the activist CA judge was a campaign funding bundler for Obama who delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations?

(The same judge also ruled against the group that released the Planned Parenthood baby parts selling video-while the judge's wife is a well known pro-abortion activist!).

$200,000 collected plus $30,000 of his own money in 2008. No one ever heard of his wife but wacko Neo-Con websites looked up every snippet of info on her including what videos she "liked" on Youtube. Stop being a hysterical Grandma.

The "judge" is a biased political hack who has no business being on the bench.

Like Monroe said, let's see what happens when these activist decisions get reviewed by a real court.

Jersey City delays vote on municipal ID cards

JERSEY CITY - The City Council last night delayed a final vote to adopt a municipal program aimed at helping residents who are in the country illegally obtain an ID.

Council President Rolando Lavarro, who has helped lead the fight for immigrant rights in Jersey City, said there were issues with "the language of the ordinance" that would have established the program.

Monroe wrote:Is anyone shocked that the activist CA judge was a campaign funding bundler for Obama who delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations?

(The same judge also ruled against the group that released the Planned Parenthood baby parts selling video-while the judge's wife is a well known pro-abortion activist!).

$200,000 collected plus $30,000 of his own money in 2008. No one ever heard of his wife but wacko Neo-Con websites looked up every snippet of info on her including what videos she "liked" on Youtube. Stop being a hysterical Grandma.

The "judge" is a biased political hack who has no business being on the bench.

Like Monroe said, let's see what happens when these activist decisions get reviewed by a real court.

Monroe wrote:Is anyone shocked that the activist CA judge was a campaign funding bundler for Obama who delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations?

(The same judge also ruled against the group that released the Planned Parenthood baby parts selling video-while the judge's wife is a well known pro-abortion activist!).

$200,000 collected plus $30,000 of his own money in 2008. No one ever heard of his wife but wacko Neo-Con websites looked up every snippet of info on her including what videos she "liked" on Youtube. Stop being a hysterical Grandma.

President Trump loses again as federal judge blocks his executive order cutting sanctuary city funds

NEW YORK DAILY NEWSTuesday, April 25, 2017, 9:00 PM

A federal judge in San Francisco has blocked a Trump administration order to withhold funding from so-called sanctuary cities — the latest in a series of blows to the President’s hardline immigration agenda.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick on Tuesday issued the preliminary injunction in two lawsuits against an executive order targeting communities that protect immigrants from deportation.

TAQsmp wrote:Great 8 years... Haha, that's funny. The cold hard truth for the big guys and sullys and d advocates of the world is its going to be a depressing next 50 years for people who share that view. Unfortunately guys, they can stop immigration about as much as they can stop drugs or guns. The occasional battle may be won, but the war was lost long ago. :(

Drugs, prostitution and guns are futile battles because economics has a way of fulfilling demand even when the demand is illegal.

However, I'm not sure illegal immigration really fits that bill. It requires an obvious hole to exploit - an unsecured border, a lack of deportation, a lack of will to actually punish violators, etc. I could secure the border tomorrow for fairly cheap with no new wall whatsoever. I'll throw down landmines everywhere. 95% chance of death if you try to cross the border other than through a designated crossing. I'll leave the dead bodies to rot in the minefield as a warning to others. Of course, no one really has the appetite for that, so instead we'll spend billions on walls. But don't tell me it is impossible, when it is perfectly possible.

Great 8 years... Haha, that's funny. The cold hard truth for the big guys and sullys and d advocates of the world is its going to be a depressing next 50 years for people who share that view. Unfortunately guys, they can stop immigration about as much as they can stop drugs or guns. The occasional battle may be won, but the war was lost long ago. :(

devilsadvocate wrote:No non-citizen has a right to come to the US. Full stop.

Welcoming non-citizens to the United States has long been one of our highest priorities. Full twat.

1. Even if true, my statement and your statement are not contradictory. It is up to the country as to who to accept and under what circumstances.

2. It isn't really true. While we have accepted immigrants, it is because of the perceived benefit they could bring us. Where we decided they were harmful, we didn't let them in.

3. In particular, we're now primarily talking about immigrants that did not even come in a legal, acceptable way. There should be serious consequences for that in order to discourage it. Otherwise, what is the point in jumping through the hoops of legal immigration?

4. I love the bleating of the liberal sheep. So sure of what they think they're entitled to. It is going to be a great 8 years.

devilsadvocate wrote:No non-citizen has a right to come to the US. Full stop.

Welcoming non-citizens to the United States has long been one of our highest priorities. Full twat.

you're the twat Frank, the US welcomes non-citizens that don't sneak across our borders and use up our resources. Any non-citizen that presents him/herself at the border with proper paperwork authenticating them, can still request to cross our borders and potentially reside in the US.

devilsadvocate wrote:No non-citizen has a right to come to the US. Full stop.

Welcoming non-citizens to the United States has long been one of our highest priorities. Full twat.

Listening to the liberal / progressive / leftist whine over the DOJ withholding security grants to sanctuary cities and states that are sidestepping federal immigration laws is priceless. They act like this federal hammer is the first time it has ever happened?

This was a common tactic of the Obama Administration and it comes from a long history of similar federal activity. The mandatory 55 mph for all states during the "oil crisis" was enforced by denying transportation funding... and we got to read a nanny state rationale about how many lives would be saves annually by lowering the highway speed.

An ironic twist with the left wing statist logic can be seen with the illegal alien issue. They adopted a convenient "state's right" philosophy that they typically tie to conservative right wing racists who oppose federal oversight / intervention to local issues like property / water ownership rights.

There is a difference between the mass immigration of the early 20th Century and immigration today. There was no social programs so immigrants had to make it on their own. Many immigrants even built their own schools so they did not burden the local schools. Today illegal immigrants do receive many social services from subsided housing, foods stamps for their children and they do use the public schools. This website states immigrants do use social services. http://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Immigrant-Native-Households

rescuelife wrote:One random thought here- during WWII Jews across Europe were routinely denied Visas to enter the US (including Anne Frank's father) as there was fear they were secretly Nazis. Do you think the Yvonnes of today would have denied the Jewish refugees safe passage during WWII? Food for thought.

First, I did read about Anne Frank. That is not the same comparison. Jews do not plant bombs in our country trying to overthrow democracy. They do not practice Sharia Law. There is nothing that I have read that requires them to kill 'unbelievers.'

I fundamentally agree but I'll note something else: even though Jews during WW2 were far less dangerous (in fact, probably as much of a model refugee community as you can imagine), accepting millions of refugees at the start of a world war would have been exceptionally taxing from a resource perspective, and millions of people from foreign lands would ultimately change the culture of this one dramatically. Therefore, I don't think the US's stance of accepting some Jewish refugees but not simply accepting millions wasn't unreasonable. The fact that the US has a refugee program doesn't mean we're obligated to accept every refugee that needs a place to go, then provide them with food, shelter, clothing, etc. at taxpayer expense. No non-citizen has a right to come to the US. Full stop.

My understanding is that as of earlier this year, JC became a sanctuary city. So if threats to cut DOJ federal funds to sanctuary cities come to pass, what funding will we now lose and how will our taxes be affected? What's the impact of funding for police? Thank you Fulop for your foresight -- Now, what is it gonna cost me?

It is idiotic and pointless. If Fulop wants to fight the federal government can he please leave me out of it?

My understanding is that as of earlier this year, JC became a sanctuary city. So if threats to cut DOJ federal funds to sanctuary cities come to pass, what funding will we now lose and how will our taxes be affected? What's the impact of funding for police? Thank you Fulop for your foresight -- Now, what is it gonna cost me?

Here is the irony, the Jersey Journal ran a story sometime ago on a woman from Africa who married a man in JC, they belong to St. Patrick's Church. She was deported. Her husband and 3 children remained here. I also know a former teacher from St. Peter's Prep who married a teacher from Ireland who worked in the Prep. They had a son. The government deported her so he decided to follow his wife and son. I saw him several years ago. His other children are Irish and his older son is American. How many Americans have the same problem? They marry foreign nationals and the government deports them. Apparently, people who sneak in here have more rights to stay than Americans married to foreign nationals.